Isn't this considered illegal and unsolicited legal advice? They basically implying that by law there is a responsibility. They are not saying that they are holding the keeper responsible.

I fear that can be said about any especially legal issue. You know the saying? 3 lawyers = at least 6 opinions. Because every lawyer must be able to argue for either side

In my experience, ignoring inappropriate things are usually the best thing. Let the mods do their work in silence, and let's focus on the topics.

Well, good observation. And it is not even considered how many court actions are won, and how many of those are won due to poor defence. The ratio of unenforceable actions could even be lower.

While I have nothing do with the moderation and by no means know the moderators or any other participants here, and I also don't have any opinion on the actions of the moderators, I want to give my opinion to this, since I posted in that thread, in what I believe, satisfactory way throughout. Perky was the one who avoided dealing with concrete points of discussion. It would be very good to have a discussion on certain especially legal points of the discussion. And a pointed question that asks why a certain legal principle is or is not violated would IMHO help a lot of people here. However, usually those questions were ignored, or answered by perky with personal attacks, or by disclosing of private information, which most of it has been edited, I believe by the moderators, and therefore does not show anymore. I would rather like to discuss the issues at hand, than what is fair/unfair. Fairness is always a subjective emotion, that can only be solve by agreeing to disagree. Let's stick to issues that can be objectively discussed.

If you look on the faq page of combined parking solutions, it states that they take 5% to court, 10% are unenforceable, and the remaining 85% pay in the stages without taking it up to the hearing. Certainly, we don't know if the numbers of such a website can be trusted. However, if you look at the letters, the misrepresentation they contain, and the fact that they are given the impression that it is a criminal matter. I have made a unscientific survey among people I know, have to unfortunately say, I can imagine that the number of people who pay without a fight is very high, maybe not as high, but very high. That is exactly the percentage game that is played. It is not different that any other [problem] con-artists play. They don't have to be successful everytime, but unfortunately they are more often than not. Also, don't forget, the scheme is built in such a way that people are not given time to make an informed decision (one of the attributes, the OFT describes scams with). I would think 99% of people have never heard about the fact that it is a [problem]. They either have never encountered it, or believed the notice was sent/given by the local authority. There is still not enough public relations to educate people. The only real way to stop these con-artists, is to make sure everybody knows the facts. Beating some of them up here, may be nice strokes for the ego, but at the end will not stop them. Same as with those banks. As long as nobody knew how illegal their actions are, they got away with it. The few, who protested got a refund in order to keep it quite. However, most times people either didn't bother, or didn't know that they could fight it, or didn't know how to. The knowledge of people about PPC must get to the same level or even higher. No profits, the necessity to really work, is the best way to send those Sheriffs of Nottingham to the places they belong.

Shouldn't it be x*b

You only get an invoice from them if there is a contract between them and you, to which you have clearly communicated acceptance.

Still ponders about an answer to his question. And I always thought Small Claims Courts must argue under the same laws as any other court. I start to wonder....

Well, everybody seem to imply that there is a contract between a driver and the PPC? Is there really?

How can a signage that is not seen, or even seen create an acceptance, while Felthouse v. Bindley clearly states that any acceptance must be clearly communicated. What legal authority overruled Felthouse v. Bindley? Or, if not, why does it not apply to PPCs?

Maybe you can answer my question about Felthouse v. Bindley?

That is criminal law. Unfortunately the letters send by PPCs seem to portrait a criminal matter even if it is not. They have to in fact operate under civil law. That means, it is about the rights and obligations between the parties. Therefore the burden of proof is also different.

I wonder if those PCNs are covered under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971

Well, that depends. Yes, everybody should be considerate to each other, and a lot of people behaving in an anti-social way. However, this does not give the right to certain people to play police, prosecuter, judge, jury and executioner, all in one. We have laws that should be followed. Sending out penalty notices that look like they come from a public body and are sanctioned under criminal law, but in fact are just designed this way to soften people up to pay in order to enrich a few, does not do anything to help the issue. The DVLA requires organisations that inquire information from them not to behave in this way. Unfortunately they ignore their obligations and act in an illegitimate if not illegal way anyway. What should their 'penalty' be?

Isn't it true that the biggest bullies always complain first of being bullied?

Well, the FAQ gives it away if the numbers are really true. Only 5% of people refuse to pay. If now the costs are offset, which are marginal, almost all money can be booked as profits.

Isn't it placed in a very prominent place on their website?

Well, in a country were the government looses the private information of every child in the country..... what do you expect? That they go after those [problem] artists that at least give them a share through taxes?

Sounds like a retreat, I am still waiting for an authority overruling Felthouse v. Bindley, or at least a sound explanation why it doesn't apply.

Well, let's make it simple and argue on legal authority. What is the legal authority that sets aside Felthouse v. Brindley and allows a contract with a non-communicated acceptance just by seeing a signage? Simple enough?

Well, the sentiment is understandable, however, two wrongs don't make a right. Any action must still be sound according to the laws. It is not acceptable to use unlawful punishment, nor is it acceptable that certain people enrich themselves on the lack of legal knowledge of ordinary people. If you read the OFT's description of a [problem], it sounds very similar.

Perky, You claim that merely seeing your signage constitutes an acceptance of a contract. You also claim that because the terms of the contract were accepted by this, they are unchallengeable even so the charge is substantially higher than any public parking. Therefore the amount of the charge is irrelevant as a point of law. Since it is irrelevant, why not put £1,000,000 as the parking charge. Since the amount is irrelevant this should still be in your reasoning a valid and enforceable contract, right?

Where is this ominous judgment?

Since I am not privy to the original transcript, I obviously did not refer to it. I just made a general statement of law. The point is that you don't start on a neutral ground, when you start at an appeal. However, how did you as the plaintiff, argue that a contract did exist, or how did the judge reason that it did?